G.R. No. 189434 - Marcos, Jr. vs. Republic

The case involves petitioners Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. and Imelda Romualdez-Marcos who challenged the forfeiture of various assets linked to Arelma, an entity established by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos.
The forfeiture proceedings were initiated on the ground that the assets were manifestly and grossly disproportionate to the aggregate salaries earned by the Marcoses as public officials, thereby presuming that these assets were ill-gotten.
The legal basis cited for the forfeiture is Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379, which presumes the illicit nature of assets that are disproportionate to the lawful income of public officers.

On 25 April 2012, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision affirming the 2 April 2009 ruling of the Sandiganbayan, which had granted a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by declaring the assets—including those of Arelma—forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.
Prior to this decision, in G.R. No. 152154, the Court had addressed a separate issue involving the forfeiture of five Swiss bank accounts, ruling that the summary judgment over those accounts did not preclude further proceedings on other assets.
The assets subject to forfeiture include a wide array of properties such as holding companies, agro-industrial investments, landholdings, buildings, condominium units, U.S. real estate, time deposits, foreign currencies, jewelry, and Treasury Bills held in custody by the Central Bank.

The petitioners argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in granting its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on two main counts:

They contended that the Republic had previously indicated its intention to file a separate forfeiture action specifically for the assets of Arelma, implying that the Court should have abstained from ruling on these assets in the existing summary judgment.
They stressed that Civil Case No. 0141 (the case enumerating the assets) had already terminated, and the subject assets should not be included in the summary judgment.

Further, petitioner Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the Arelma proceeds, which are held by Merrill Lynch in New York.

He maintained that since the assets are held abroad, the court must first establish territorial jurisdiction before the judgment may be enforced.

Petitioners also argued that forfeiture, being penal in nature, should be viewed as an action in personam rather than in rem, thus affecting jurisdictional and procedural considerations.

The Petition for Forfeiture explicitly listed the Arelma account among assets organized allegedly to hide the ill-gotten wealth, corroborating the State's position that those assets were acquired through unlawful means.
The decision referenced a comprehensive set of assets from diverse sources, including multiple types of properties and financial instruments both in the Philippines and abroad.
The ruling made use of established legal principles, including the possibility of separate judgments under Section 5 of Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, which allow multiple claims arising out of the same occurrence to be disposed of separately.

Whether the Sandiganbayan had the authority to grant the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment over the assets of Arelma even though the Republic allegedly reserved its right to file a separate forfeiture action specifically concerning these assets.
Whether the termination of Civil Case No. 0141 and the reserved separate forfeiture petition bar the current summary judgment on the Arelma account and its related proceeds.

Whether the fact that the Arelma proceeds are held by Merrill Lynch in New York undermines the territorial jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Whether the theory that forfeiture is an action in rem (requiring physical or potential custody of the assets) versus an action in personam (based on personal jurisdiction) affects the Court’s power to rule on the forfeiture despite the assets being located abroad.

Whether assets that are held abroad fall within the ambit of forfeiture proceedings under R.A. 1379 which presumes ill-gotten wealth based solely on disproportionality.
Whether the execution of a forfeiture judgment (a ministerial phase) can be conceptually and practically separated from the issuance of the judgment itself regarding the nature and location of the assets.